The word is used by character who doesn’t know better. It is dealt with. The book has a big focus on humanizing people with special needs.

Anonymous wrote:
4 grader is read Because if Mr Terupt. The book uses the word retard a few times in reference to a kid with down syndrome.
Seems like teacher should address the word. Who can I contact to address?

Does your child say the teacher is NOT addressing it? Ask the teacher directly.

Anonymous wrote:4 grader is read Because if Mr Terupt. The book uses the word retard a few times in reference to a kid with down syndrome.
Seems like teacher should address the word. Who can I contact to address?

You should move to Loudon if this bothers you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for when your kid reads Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer!

They have sanitized versions of both books now

Great, censorship. Leaves less to teach.

Or, it creates more to teach because you (should) have to explain why the sanitized version doesn't have the same meaning and impact as the original, then teach what the original was and what it meant and why it was changed. Whereas, you could just properly teach the original and it will speak for itself.

Anonymous wrote:I would guess that the Teacher is addressing the use of the word and the treatment of the character. You can email the Teacher and ask if you would like.

+1

I am not familiar with the book. I imagine the teacher is addressing it.

I do have to note, that decades ago, the term "retarded" was used to describe those with low IQ. It was widely used in education circles and was not necessarily used as a slur. As an education major, I remember learning that there were three levels of mental retardation: 1) Educable mentally retarded; 2) trainable; and, 3) custodial. Thankfully, we have come a long way since then in the treatment of those who are challenged.

But, I would certainly discuss with my own child that the term should not be used.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m 99% sure all the people saying books should never be sanitized never have to worry about the impact of reading derogatory words on their own kids, because there aren’t books with derogatory words that apply to their kids.

What an idiotic statement.

So you have a hard time with the accuracy of that statement, I see.

Anonymous wrote:I’m 99% sure all the people saying books should never be sanitized never have to worry about the impact of reading derogatory words on their own kids, because there aren’t books with derogatory words that apply to their kids.

What an idiotic statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for when your kid reads Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer!

They have sanitized versions of both books now

Great, censorship. Leaves less to teach.

Anonymous wrote:I’m 99% sure all the people saying books should never be sanitized never have to worry about the impact of reading derogatory words on their own kids, because there aren’t books with derogatory words that apply to their kids.

🙄🙄🙄

I’m 99% sure all the people saying books should never be sanitized never have to worry about the impact of reading derogatory words on their own kids, because there aren’t books with derogatory words that apply to their kids.

Nothing wrong with the word retard, when used in context. It is only when applied to a developmentally delayed child that it becomes problematic.

And books should not be sanitized. See: Gender Queer.

Literally who cares?